Morality of LG spellcasting

[Voadam]

Contagion has the evil descriptor, so Heironeous (at lest in my campaign wouldn't grant the spell) and the cleric casting it would have to atone. It is not the same.

A LG cleric of a LG god cannot cast a cleric spell with an evil descriptor. It is not a matter of choice under the rules as written. The cleric cannot choose to cast it and suffer alignment consequences and then possibly atone later. Clerics have absolute alignment restrictions upon which spells they can cast, period.

For morally grey non evil descriptor spells there might be doctrinaire church codes against choosing to use them the same as there can be for arcane spells.

 

[Grithfang]

You seem to be assuming that the tyrant will not be killed by one (or even more than one) blow from your sword, and that, after taking some damage, he might repent.

I am not assuming anything. LG can and do bring lethal force to bear upon evil foes (and non-evil ones that are preforming evil acts). I merely point out that there is a possibility for redemption and a good PC should be prepared to give quarter. Spells with instant death effects, especially those that utilize negative energy, would in my mine be distasteful. As a result I could certainly see them codified as forbidden. There are other ways to do the same thing that are more honorable.

This is why I phrased the question in the title as moral choices. In present day we are up in arms about water boarding. A non-lethal and effective interrogation technique. I don't hear to many people saying we should do more of that. It is morally repugnant. I believe death effect spells would have the same association in a fantasy LG society.

 

[Angel Tarragon]

Yep. And IMHO it does not deserve that descriptor.

I have to agree with Nifft on this.

 

[Grithfang]

I have to agree with Nifft on this.

Using the foul sight granted by the powers of unlife . . . This is the fluff text that begins describing the spell. What I perceive you actually saying is you think there should be an official first level spell that has the same effect that is not evil. i.e. Blessed with beatific sight granted by the servants of good, you can perceive the condition of creatures . . .

Cleric's can research spells just as wizards can (I am sure you know this, just stating for redundancy). It is not what the spell does that is immoral, it is the manner in which it accomplishes the task, which is part of the point of this thread.

 

[kenobi65]

I merely point out that there is a possibility for redemption and a good PC should be prepared to give quarter. Spells with instant death effects, especially those that utilize negative energy, would in my mine be distasteful. As a result I could certainly see them codified as forbidden. There are other ways to do the same thing that are more honorable.

What about opponents that aren't redeemable? Say, a demon, or a lich, or an ancient CE dragon? (Not that I think it changes your answer, as the code of chivalry is notoriously "dumb" that way, and not that I necessarily disagree with you, but I'm just curious.)

 

[Angel Tarragon]

Using the foul sight granted by the powers of unlife . . . This is the fluff text that begins describing the spell. What I perceive you actually saying is you think there should be an official first level spell that has the same effect that is not evil. i.e. Blessed with beatific sight granted by the servants of good, you can perceive the condition of creatures . . .

Why create a whole new spell? Just house rule the spell for both descriptors if thats rthe way you want it. Then you can use both spell descriptions. Seems fine with me.

 

[Grithfang]

What about opponents that aren't redeemable? Say, a demon, or a lich, or an ancient CE dragon?

Many sources are quite clear on it, if they are not redeemable they are to be destroyed. Especially demons, devils and undead.

Why create a whole new spell? Just house rule the spell for both descriptors if thats rthe way you want it. Then you can use both spell descriptions. Seems fine with me.

Why house rule when you can fit it in nicely with the RAW?

 

[Dragonbait]

We included the symbols because of the method of implementation plus effects. Leaving symbols around that the innocent can stumble across seemed too random for a lawful being.

Clarification on semantics: Leaving symbols around areas in a haphazard fashion would be against stronly Lawful mindsets. What triggers them would not come into play.

Leaving symbols around that run the risk of harming innocents would be something a good-aligned person would have a problem with.

Order vs. Disorder compared to Morality vs. Immorality.

 

[kenobi65]

Many sources are quite clear on it, if they are not redeemable they are to be destroyed. Especially demons, devils and undead.

Then...would you offer them quarter if they asked it? Would you force yourself to follow the rules of honorable combat against a creature that you know won't follow the same rules?

 

[Grithfang]

Then...would you offer them quarter if they asked it? Would you force yourself to follow the rules of honorable combat against a creature that you know won't follow the same rules?

The quick answer is no. The long answer would depend on the campaign. For example using some of the optional rules in the Libris Mortis it is possible to have a undead paladin of Heironeous. In those circumstances all undead are not unredeemable.

A clearer answer would be, if a creature that can receive ecclesiastical instruction and apply them, then it is redeemable. Demons and Devils are not capable of this, nor are most undead (except the afore mentioned circumstance).